J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[Blitzo]

Like I said, by itself it’s a weak argument, but you weren’t making a point about the strength of such an argument. Rather you were trying to argue whether it fell within the scope of discussion. I’m just saying I think it’s within scope.

For the sake of discussion let's just say it isn't in the scope of discussion.

Because right now the scope of discussion really should be about people's understanding of PLA watching and the methods involved in PLA watching, and the source's that are considered credible and not-credible.
Only then are people able to ask informed questions and be receptive to answers provided.

 

[Brumby]

For the sake of discussion let's just say it isn't in the scope of discussion.

Because right now the scope of discussion really should be about people's understanding of PLA watching and the methods involved in PLA watching, and the source's that are considered credible and not-credible.
Only then are people able to ask informed questions and be receptive to answers provided.

Let me provide some input from my perspective.
1)Saying you are better informed does not advance your view. You obviously have developed a degree of comfort level with certain information source that you consider credible and reliable. That comfort level does not extend beyond your immediate world.
2)Your job is to represent that collective view to the outside world based on facts and information and not your comfort level. Comfort level is a subjective personal thing whereas facts are universally objective.
3)Take for example, the radar issue. An AESA radar does not get from statement of intent (14th institute) to fielding with no evidence in between because we are talking about years and extensive work. There are always some evidence of progress if indeed there is progress. The challenge is putting together a case to demonstrate progress is made and why certain conclusions can be reasonably drawn from it. .

 

[Blitzo]

Let me provide some input from my perspective.
1)Saying you are better informed does not advance your view. You obviously have developed a degree of comfort level with certain information source that you consider credible and reliable. That comfort level does not extend beyond your immediate world.
2)Your job is to represent that collective view to the outside world based on facts and information and not your comfort level. Comfort level is a subjective personal thing whereas facts are universally objective.
3)Take for example, the radar issue. An AESA radar does not get from statement of intent (14th institute) to fielding with no evidence in between because we are talking about years and extensive work. There are always some evidence of progress if indeed there is progress. The challenge is putting together a case to demonstrate progress is made and why certain conclusions can be reasonably drawn from it. .

In that case there is simply no agreement that we can come to, and it is probably easier all of us (yourself included), for you to simply not participate in these PLA watching threads if you consider our basis of evidence to be insufficient for your standards.


I've already provided what I believe is the collective collective view of the community and the methods and sources for PLA watching that the community uses. If you choose to reject that, then fine, but then also do us a favour and stop trying to challenge the conclusions that we reach and the methods that we use because it just ends up creating pages of nonsense in the main threads where PLA watching is the goal rather than debating over how PLA watching should be done.

 

[Brumby]

It was from an insider called yankeesama.

A translation was provided on reddit (incorrectly titled as a PLAAF officer interview), here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The comments also provide additional translations of other parts of yankee's post:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I read both links and noticed problematic comments on the radar between the two links.

The first link stated the following :

The N035E is an excellent PESA radar. It's pretty much the best PESA radar you can practically develop.
- However, it's substantially weaker than the current generation of Chinese AESAs.

The second link stated the following :

The N035E's look-up range is only slightly more than the J-16 radar's look-down range, and the former is not as effective as the latter in anti-surface mode

The problem is the following contradiction :
The first link suggest that the Russian PESA is substantially weaker than the Chinese AESA. The second link suggest that the J-16 radar (assuming AESA) is about equal in detection range to the SU-35. Typically look up has marginally better range than look down. Since the comparison was between look up and look down, the net effect basically says it is similar. Both statements cannot be right at the same time.

 

[Blitzo]

I read both links and noticed problematic comments on the radar between the two links.

The first link stated the following :

The second link stated the following :


The problem is the following contradiction :
The first link suggest that the Russian PESA is substantially weaker than the Chinese AESA. The second link suggest that the J-16 radar (assuming AESA) is about equal in detection range to the SU-35. Typically look up has marginally better range than look down. Since the comparison was between look up and look down, the net effect basically says it is similar. Both statements cannot be right at the same time.

?
No, it is consistent...

The part about the radar in the first link is saying the J-16's radar is more powerful than the Su-35's radar.

The part about the radar in the second link is of course saying that the Su-35's look up range is only slightly more than J-16's look down range.
Look up range tends to be longer than look down range, which is correct.
In other words, it is saying that Su-35's "long range" option (aka it's look up range) is only a little better than J-16's "short range" option (aka its look down range).

Putting it another way, it is saying J-16's "short range" option is almost as long as Su-35's "long range" option.

 

[latenlazy]

I read both links and noticed problematic comments on the radar between the two links.

The first link stated the following :

The second link stated the following :


The problem is the following contradiction :
The first link suggest that the Russian PESA is substantially weaker than the Chinese AESA. The second link suggest that the J-16 radar (assuming AESA) is about equal in detection range to the SU-35. Typically look up has marginally better range than look down. Since the comparison was between look up and look down, the net effect basically says it is similar. Both statements cannot be right at the same time.

If look up range is generally better than look down range for radars, and the Su-35’s look up range only matches up to the J-16’s look down range, that would suggest the J-16’s look up range is better than the Su-35’s.

 

[Brumby]

In that case there is simply no agreement that we can come to, and it is probably easier all of us (yourself included), for you to simply not participate in these PLA watching threads if you consider our basis of evidence to be insufficient for your standards.


I've already provided what I believe is the collective collective view of the community and the methods and sources for PLA watching that the community uses. If you choose to reject that, then fine, but then also do us a favour and stop trying to challenge the conclusions that we reach and the methods that we use because it just ends up creating pages of nonsense in the main threads where PLA watching is the goal rather than debating over how PLA watching should be done.

It is not about what basis of evidence is sufficient or not. You simply cannot claim to be more knowledgeable by fiat and by extension an universal passport to a view and insist others are less informed. I am saying you need to provide sufficient grounding with any specific claims. PLA watching is not entitled to special exemption from reason because you believe it is warranted.

 

[Brumby]

If look up range is generally better than look down range for radars, and the Su-35’s look up range only matches up to the J-16’s look down range, that would suggest the J-16’s look up range is better than the Su-35’s.

No. Please refer specifically to what is said in the link. It says that the look up range of the SI-35 is slightly more not equal.

 

[Blitzo]

It is not about what basis of evidence is sufficient or not. You simply cannot claim to be more knowledgeable by fiat and by extension an universal passport to a view and insist others are less informed. I am saying you need to provide sufficient grounding with any specific claims. PLA watching is not entitled to special exemption from reason because you believe it is warranted.

We can reflect on who on a forum is more knowledgeable when looking at the kind of sources they consider to be credible and the subsequent developments that had occurred afterwards that were confirmed.
That way we are able to measure people's judgement and logic for this very specific domain of military watching that requires a different set of skills to military watching for other nations.


So yeah, I am definitely going to claim that there are people on this forum who are more knowledgeable for PLA watching than some other people.

 

[Brumby]

?
No, it is consistent...

The part about the radar in the first link is saying the J-16's radar is more powerful than the Su-35's radar.

The part about the radar in the second link is of course saying that the Su-35's look up range is only slightly more than J-16's look down range.
Look up range tends to be longer than look down range, which is correct.
In other words, it is saying that Su-35's "long range" option (aka it's look up range) is only a little better than J-16's "short range" option (aka its look down range).

Putting it another way, it is saying J-16's "short range" option is almost as long as Su-35's "long range" option.

No. Look up and look down means precisely that. it is not about long or short range. Look up tends to be better because there is les clutter to deal with. Look down has to filter out more noise because of back scattering effect.